I was also on ZB today, and was asked about National’s position on Winston as Foreign Minister. I said that I was disappointed in the response in that it missed an opportunity to differentiate National from Labour in terms of how far one would compromise good Government just to keep the numbers together.

What I would have liked John Key to say in response to the question of whether one could have Peters as a future Foreign Minister is:

“Look no one is ruled in or out of a portfolio in advance, but what I will say is that in a Government I lead, you will not be able to be Minister of Foreign Affairs unless you support the Government’s foreign policy, which obviously includes trade agreements”

Key was not wrong to not rule Peters out. The sad reality of MMP is you can’t rule most things in or out until you have the elction results. But I do think he missed a real opportunity to make it clear that while he could not rule a person (Peters) out, he could rule out unacceptable behaviour (the Foreign Minister saying he will criticise a trade agreement while overseas, and campaigning against it in NZ before the ink is even dry).

This whole episode shows us the problem with the ever increasing removal of collective responsibility. It has gone too far. I am not saying it needs to go back to the days of every member of the Executive having to support the Government on every issue. But when you are having a debate about whether or not it is okay for the Foreign Affairs Minister to be personally heading up a newspaper campaign against a major foreign policy achievement with China, then things have gone too far. There shouldn’t even be a debate.

I mean we have the Foreign Affairs Minister campaigning on his opposition to trade with foreigners, his opposition to Asian foreigners being able to live here, and his opposition to people being able to sell property or shares to foreigners. Does Helen not think this might slightly undermine his ability to be an effective and respected Foreign Minister?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

53 Responses to “What I wish National had said”

“while he could not rule a person (Peters) out, he could rule out unacceptable behaviour (the Foreign Minister saying he will criticise a trade agreement while overseas, and campaigning against it in NZ before the ink is even dry).”

Yes, but I’m guessing that even someone as gormless as Winnie might recognise that statement as referring to him. That would be why John Cey didn’t say it. It’s an election year after all. C’est la vie in politics, n’est pas?

The reality is that Goff as trade minister, can cover up for Peters in these areas. And with both Labour and National in support, the trade agreement will pass anyway. Nothing to worry about. Idiot/savant at no right turn had a god post on agree to disagree provisions within coalition agreements.

I agree that Key did the right thing in not ruling Peters out. Peters has pledged to negotiate first with the larger party, which will definately be National, short of something really major.

And having NZ First back in Parliament wil definately be in National’s best interest. Imagine a post election situation of National 58 (N) seats, United (U) 1, ACT (A) 1 =60, and Labour (L) 50, Progressive (P) 1 (overhang), Greens (G) 7, Maori (M) 7 (4 overhang)=65, with NZ First on 4.9%. The contest will be between a far left LPGM government, or centrist NUM government. The Maori Party will be kingmaker like NZ First post 96, and can go with Labour, running the country tail wag dog style (as Labour will have no other options).

But same post election situation, with NZ First at 5% (with 3 seats from National, and 3 seats from Labour), is N 55, U 1, A 1, NZ First 6= 63, L 47, P 1, G 7, M 7=62. Labour will need a LPGM-NZ First coalition to govern, 5 parties. Too big a ask. National could choose between a NUM or NUA-NZ First government, and neither Peters or the Maori will be able to hold the Government to ransome, as Key could work with both the Maori party and NZ First when needed.

I feel sorry for the voters, we have been sold a pup and that pup is MMP. Politicians are now not governed by concepts like honour, honesty or the courage of their convictions. Winnie would of course argue that he is following the belief that he is correct and the rest of the world is wrong and so must speak out, it’s just a pity that he failed to speak out on earlier issues these leftwing tossers have imposed on the population of NZ. I find it remarkable that he has finally found his voice, I wonder if it has anything to do with something that is happening later this year. We have been sold down the drain by the sheer lust for power at all cost and the voters have no way of bringing this bullshit to heel.

I’ve had a gutsful of Winston Peters. Any party that is prepared to give political oxygen to this well-suited deadbeat is toast in my opinion. This has basically lost John Key and National my vote. I’m just thankful I saw the light this far out from the election. http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/ (n’est ce que pas?)

I agree with Lee. John Keys pragmatism was understandable intitially, but now it has gone so far that National and Labour look the same. I genuinely hope for a change in direction – therefore ACT will be getting my vote this year.

SSB. The Pup is John Key. WHen you try to balance on the top of the fence and try to be all things to all people, what should one expect..
John Key and National are starting to look like the amatures they are. 4th term labour coming up.
Enjoy it guys.

>I mean we have the Foreign Affairs Minister campaigning on his opposition to trade with foreigners, his opposition to Asian foreigners being able to live here, and his opposition to people being able to sell property or shares to foreigners.

You wonder why he wanted to be Minister of Foreign Affairs. Surely he can’t enjoy having to meet all those foreign people speaking their odd foreign languages and doing thinks in their strange foreign ways?

I guess you Wellingtonians have to justify living in a summerless wind tunnel by constantly telling each other how important this political sideshow is, but there are more pressing issues in the real world. This is just another stage in the process of learning how to operate coalition government. That Labour have been faster to grasp the basics has been to their advantage, so I’m not unhappy that so many of you have yet to figure this stuff out.

Sadly, Key’s showing some signs of learning how things work in the land of coalition government. That’s why he’s not about to start drawing lines in the sand now, as DPF suggests. If he did, then chances are he would restrict his options come bargaining time after the election, and face the choice later of forcing an election at some point or looking even sillier than Helen is right now. And duplicitous.

The small parties have picked up on the need to differentiate themselves and not appear the tame poodles of the larger parties in order to avoid being seen as irrelevant and thus consigned to electoral oblivion. So, you have to cut them some slack. Big deal. If Helen had cut more slack in other areas — as I think she ought to have — then maybe she wouldn’t be having to look the other way…

Oh, and all those people calling Peters “gormless” and so on have obviously never discussed the political scene with him. He’s much cleverer and infinitely better informed about what’s going on in the electorate than you, for all of the anger management issues that have been aired on this blog. His positions on issues may be execrable, but he is not stupid. To treat him as such is foolhardy.

Well, personally I was being ironic when I used that word. Not sure how others took it. Obviously Peters would be hip to the subtext of what Cey was saying… Winnie is a smart operator alright. A smart shortarsed little boofhead.

Anybody with a brain watching Parliament in action recently must surely be struck, as I am, by the sheer parody that is delivered daily. The average Kiwi , who is too busy working to watch this stuff, probably thinks that canditates give a shit about them. Ho Ho Ho. The news media in NZ is PATHETIC. I watched the action in the House today and the TV1 news and there was no co-relation. I wish that people were better informed.

I once had some admiration for Peter’s, now I have nothing but disdain and contempt for the cretin. If this moron ever gets back into parliament, it will be the personification of the dumbing down of New Zealand. Oh and BTW, did anyone notice how the Speaker screamed at the jerk to sit down and shut-up? What a stupid woman, unfit to be a Speaker. Oh dear, what has NZ Parliament become?? D4J, is right..it really is a circus and they are playing us all for clowns knowing that under MMP, they can get away with what they like. I have no faith, respect or confidence in any of these imbeciles. The first party to make a stand and say they will hold a binding referendum on MMP will get my vote. New Zealand lacks both the population and maturity, for this system of governance.

It does seem like a strange thing to have a minister at odds with policy he is charged to represent, but if having to deal with the idea of people having disagreements while going about their work is a price of an electoral system that better represents the population it doesn’t seem too heavy a burden to lift.

Adults shouldn’t find it a hard thought to encompass – that people can disagree and argue in the proper arena against ideas while dutifully working within a policy they hope to change. We pretty much all have to do it sometime in our work.

MMP forces government to consider the representatives of smaller sections of society. That this sometimes entails concessions at odds with the governments will is annoying for the ego of politicians but good for the country.

Personally I disliked the founding of the Kiwi Bank, the expense annoyed me. But if that’s a concession the government had to make to win support of some 6 – 10% of the electorates representatives and they spent no more than what may be imagined as that section of societies ‘discretionary’ tax (meaning an imaginary proportion of tax you can think people would like directed to their representatives agenda rather than anothers) then it’s a good thing.

Some people got something tangible from their government that they wanted from a party whose policies they voted for (without managing to win control of goverment) and the expense of the deal was a reasonable part of the taxes they pay. They’re happy, they got a result, the government is happy, it got a working coalition.

This is the whole idea behind proportional representation (MMP or not) – the peoples will translated proportionally to government policy. And everyone is better for it.

The compromises involved help steer society clear of a ramshackle battering from ideologies as policy swerves side to side, barrier to barrier, crash to crash when control is wrested absolutely from ideology to ideology.

A person ought not find it diffilcult to comprehend that this means disagreement and discussion between the factions in and out of coalition government, and their need to advertise differences to the electorate as campaigns, is a fact of life.

And a good one to see. Everyone gets their chance to have their say at the ballot, and your vote won’t be meaningless even if your side doesn’t grab absolute power if it can manage to work with other people.

Only thugs with few friends who can’t play well with others have something to fear from this. And that’s another good thing.

Key will need to start drawing lines at some point. He should have stated very clearly where the lines of responsibility are going to be if he leads the major party after the next election. Winston Peters is making a mockery of NZ and I find it harder and harder to take this country seriously any more. These bastards in our parliament are setting their own boundaries and they no longer represent what is good for his country and nor do they even pretend to. MMP is a big part of the problem and if the Nats had nuts they would promise a review and referendum on this farcical excuse for a democratic system. We should not have to tolerate fuckwits like Winston Peters grandstanding to the detriment of this country so they can keep sucking on the public teat.

FTC I don’t have any toys. Just a vote and an opinion. If you think your being more ‘grown-up’ by simply accepting whatever you are asked to then fine. I’m not quite the same. The point is, if National are going to be in nay possition to form a government, they need to get enough votes. (remember those?) If they are telling me that they aregoing to keep Winaton’s snout in the trough for anotehr three years, then I’m not going to vote for them. Simple, eally. It’s called conviction politics.

This is an excellent reason why I don’t have much time for political analysts or politicians …..Winston is not against the free trade agreement just he feels it could be better organised for NZ. So why the fuss?

Winston Peters is the bastard child of MMP. This is a system that has allowed him to continuously hold governments to ransom for the past 12 years. As DPF said on the wireless today, Winston has gone into every election since 1984 opposing the Government.

I would have liked John Key to come out and say that he would never deal with Winston; on the other hand it just gives the bugger more air-time that he doesn’t deserve. To be fair, Winston isn’t the enemy. The Labour Party is. The more oxygen given to that waste of space, the more likely he will crawl his way back up in the polls. I’d hate to think John Key was defending Winston’s position–but I don’t think he was.

The real issue for voters, which I think Winston continues to highlight–is if you want a Labour government, you vote Labour. If you want a National government, you vote National. Giving a vote to Winston, with the system we’ve got, just allows him to cause continued instability, no matter who is in government.

Lee- no need to be so angry…I actually happen to agree with DPF entirely, and also would prefer Peters was no where near Parliament.

The idea that voting for ACT would help rid us of Peters or Labour, when clearly it won’t is bizarre. Naturally you are free to vote whichever way you like, but constant threats to do so are frankly dull and add nothing to the debate of the issues.

Yes, John Key has to leave his options open. Unfortunately he has to get elected first, and today’s fiasco won’t have done him any favours in that regard. Ran into a diehard Nat in the supermarket tonight and he’s thrown in his membership this afternoon and returned all the election hoardings he normally nails up around the place to the local MP.

jafapete: The last time I saw Jenny, she and Burton were dining in an Italian restaurant in Mission Bay – avec Mike and Yvonne Moore. Jenny looked in positively rude health and, I’m glad to say, wasn’t shy in ordering a nice big gelato for dessert. I suspect she was still trying to vanquish the memory of that terrible week back in the mid-90s when, as Minister of Social Welfare – to PROVE that it could be done – she subsisted on the (recently slashed) Unemployment Benefit for a week… having to eat just boiled mutton and Pam’s tinned peaches for dinner, and having to smoke Holiday cigarettes and drink Ranfurly beer… I’ve even heard that she had to put money on straight trifectas at the races – as she couldn’t afford to ‘box’ them. Dark days indeed.

Hope that’s helped.

[DPF: I think you are confusing Jenny Shipley with Katherine O’Regan. I assume you did it by accident]

Lee
You know me and I can’t stand what is happening to our country
But the reality is that there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge yet
As IP pointed out Labour are the enemy
Dunne and Peters are the side show
All politicians can play us every day but we only get one shot every three years
If Key wants to keep his powder dry then so should we as voters.
The final polling before the election is critical to determining the best way to vote.

The reality is that Goff as trade minister, can cover up for Peters in these areas.

Wait a moment, Nicholas, I’d rather the Trade Minister be entirely focused on what is a significant and complex portfolio rather than be carrying dead weight that shouldn’t be in Cabinet.

Anyway, here’s another reality: You know who I’m seeing pissing on John Key in this thread: Exactly the same old faces who were doing it yesterday, and will be doing it tomorrow and the day after that no matter what he does. I’d be more worried if John Dalley had anything good to say about National or Key.

And I’ve also got a suggestion for various folks: You’ve had twelve years to go through the grieving process for FPP. I wasn’t a supporter, but I’m sure not keen on changing the electoral system every time someone doesn’t like the outcome of an election.

If a so-called die-hard National Party member had said that to me in the shopping mall, I would have told him to HTFU.

The reality is John Key cannot rule out who he would go into coalition with. It would be stupid to do so. Helen Clark has paid the price repeatedly for saying that the Maori Party would be the last cab off the rank in a coalition deal with Labour–and it has cost Labour three, if not many more years, of distrust between Labour and the Maori Party.

I don’t like Winston, or his politics, or his minimal contribution to New Zealand. John Key cannot make guarantees about coalition partners. The only way for right-wingers to make sure Key doesn’t have to deal with Winston is to do everything they can to give Key an absolute majority the day after the election. Bitching and moaning about things beforehand is just a gift to the enemy.

Agree with IP and disagree with those who claim that needing to compromise with such as Winston Peters is an unavoidable outcome of MMP. My own viewpoint is that there are more votes out there for a politician who will say clearly and unequivocally who he/ she will not share power with than for a politician who states they can’t say who’ll they go into coalition with until after the election.

If John Key had the balls, (forlorn hope) he would say that he would quite definitely not enter into any agreement with the scaremongering molesters of children’s minds the Greens, the racist Maori Party or the duplicitous dipshit Dunne party or the directionless Winston Peters party. They’re almost all complete fucken dropkicks. Hell, there’d have to be votes in that, wouldn’t there???

“Look no one is ruled in or out of a portfolio in advance, but what I will say is that in a Government I lead, you will not be able to be Minister of Foreign Affairs unless you support the Government’s foreign policy, which obviously includes trade agreements”

Key was not wrong to not rule Peters out. The sad reality of MMP is you can’t rule most things in or out until you have the elction results. But I do think he missed a real opportunity to make it clear that while he could not rule a person (Peters) out, he could rule out unacceptable behaviour (the Foreign Minister saying he will criticise a trade agreement while overseas, and campaigning against it in NZ before the ink is even dry).”

Friggin amazing.

Key categorically rules out appointing a man to cabinet who has won countless worldwide international awards; a knighthood ; and has far and away been the most effective politician this country has seen in 30 years. Yet is quite willing to appoint as Foreign Minister a man whose party makes bigoted statements against Asians; which says it won’t take baubles and does; and a man whose party still owes you and I $158K from the last election.

There’s a plane to Aussie at 11pm. I’m on it. Who wants to stay here with a PM in waiting like this!

[DPF: Key didn’t rule Douglas out in all circumstances. He ruled Douglas out on the basis of his “radical” agenda such as slashing $5 billion of spending, privatising health and education vouchers, sorry scholarships ships. Not to have done so would have made Helen happier than on her wedding day. But if ACT’s demands are more modest (such as Rodney’s excellent suggestion that lowering the 39 cent tax rate would be an absolute) then ACT are at the negotiating table. And frankly it is all hypothetical anyway as Douglas is not even in a confirmed winnable list spot yet]

If John Key had the balls, (forlorn hope) he would say that he would quite definitely not enter into any agreement with the scaremongering molesters of children’s minds the Greens, the racist Maori Party or the duplicitous dipshit Dunne party or the directionless Winston Peters party. They’re almost all complete fucken dropkicks. Hell, there’d have to be votes in that, wouldn’t there???

So you’re saying he should rule out as a coalition partner every party except ACT? And you think that would boost National’s vote and ACT’s vote sufficiently for them to govern alone with no need for agreements on confidence or supply?

Redbaiter said:
“Agree with IP and disagree with those who claim that needing to compromise with such as Winston Peters is an unavoidable outcome of MMP. My own viewpoint is that there are more votes out there for a politician who will say clearly and unequivocally who he/ she will not share power with than for a politician who states they can’t say who’ll they go into coalition with until after the election”.

Already happened RB: The Kiwi Party have publically ruled out Labour, and nominated a coalition preference for National. http://www.thekiwiparty.org.nz

Yeah I am. I think voters would appreciate the fact that at least one politician and party leader had the guts and honesty to give them a completely clear choice.

Hmm. So I’m assuming that you’re thinking people who are currently planning not to vote would switch their preferences to National or ACT? I can’t see such an approach winning the supporters of other parties – it might cause people to move from ACT to National, but that doesn’t help the overall ACT-Nat vote.

Didn’t John Key rule out Rodger Douglas holding a portfolio if Act were to be a coalition partner? The suspicion that National are Labour Lite has been confirmed. The only difference between National and Labour are that National want kids to be able to read and write and they want crims in jail. Act has my vote now.

So vote ACT then berend. John Key ruled out Roger Douglas because he’s trying to take votes off labour and people who voted for this labour govt are more likely to vote green than ACT. He would be shooting himself in the foot if the only alternative he offered to the few labour voters with a conscience was a National/ACT govt. It’s about shifting the balance gently toward the right so as not to scare the flock.
Where’s Prebs when you need him?

Gooner/Berend
I can understand why Key would rule out a member from another party being Finance Minister. After all it is the economy and its handling that has been made the major point of difference between the two major parties and it would be a “not negotiable” position that the Finance portfolio would never, ever be traded off.

In addition, Peters has already proven that you can have an ineffective and irrelevant Foreign Affairs Minister and survive without major damage.

By the way, you guys who comment about Jenny Shipley above, what do you reckon the last 9 years MIGHT have been like had the Nats stuck with her as leader? Don’t you reckon Ms Clark might have had a much, much rougher ride, and don’t you reckon that a few more womens votes (lost when the Nats dumped Jen) might have been handy?

Craig R
“And I’ve also got a suggestion for various folks: You’ve had twelve years to go through the grieving process for FPP. I wasn’t a supporter, but I’m sure not keen on changing the electoral system every time someone doesn’t like the outcome of an election.”
I agree that a return to FPP is unlikely and probably undesirable but without some effective check on the NZ single house system the shambles of the last few years at least, will continue and possibly escalate, so the question is how do we tweak the system without wrecking it. The 2 obvious choices are an elected second chamber or binding referenda with both having the unlimited power to instigate or remove legislation and politicians with this latter being the counterbalance to the inability to remove a list member. The failure of politicians to address this flaw is indicative that they actually do not want the electors to have any input except every 3 years. John Key appears not to have recognised that Nationals revival under Don Brash owed a lot to taking a definite stand on issues.